Skip to main content

Banks can't fix 60% marks as cutoff for study loans: Madras HC

The bank filed an appeal saying candidates who have secured 60% marks and above alone are eligible to get education loan, as they alone can be treated as meritorious candidates.

The bench, rejecting the submissions, said: "The government of India launched the scheme of providing education loans to economically disadvantaged people through nationalised banks. Sanction of educational loan is not free but is repayable with interest at a later point of time, of course, at a reduced rate of interest. The whole idea behind the scheme is to finance the economically disadvantaged people in their educational career. It is a social commitment for the upliftment of weaker, vulnerable and other sections of the society. It is a social welfare measure. In a way, it is some sort of social banking."

The judges said public sector banks and other financial institutions must bear the government's policy in mind while sanctioning educational loans to cover the genuine, reasonable and justified educational expenses and relieve the students and their parents from pressing financial crisis.

In this regard, the judges also pointed out that a review meeting of top bankers decided on September 27, 2013 that they would extend loans to meritorious students who get admission under management quota. It was also decided that loan applications have to be disposed of within a period of 15 days to one month.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Banks-cant-fix-60-marks-as-cutoff-for-study-loans-Madras-HC/articleshow/38098371.cms

Comments


  1. Awesome work ! I am planning to get an education loan but I was confused about the best deals available for me , your post gave me an amazing idea to explore for study loans australia . Nice post, keep posting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing this information on Education Loan. For Study loan, visit here:
    Education Loan For Study In India

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...